The Senate Compromise on Immigration: A Path to Amnesty for Up to 10 Million

The Senate's
compromise on immigration reform, which could be put to a vote as
soon as the evening of April 6, is a problematic approach to the
issue of illegal immigration. Brokered by Senators Mel Martinez
(R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the compromise deal has the
following broad provisions:

Likely amnesty for immigrants in country five or more
years: These individuals are not required to leave the
country and could apply for legal status and citizenship while in
the United States.

Visas for immigrants in country between two and five
years: They must report to one of 16 "ports of entry" and
pick up a temporary work visa. However, this would not necessarily
be a temporary-worker program, as these immigrants could be
eligible for a green card after their worker visas expire.

Deportation for immigrants in country less than two
years: They would not be allowed to seek legal status in
the United States and would therefore have to leave the country and
apply for a temporary work visa from their home countries.

While this approach is better than amnesty for all, it still
would be a road to amnesty for most immigrants who are in the
United States illegally. This policy would encourage future illegal
immigration while rewarding those who have violated America's
laws.

Amnesty for Most
A quick review of statistics on illegal immigrants from the Pew
Hispanic Center[1] indicates how many individuals the Senate
compromise would affect:

In the U.S.

Number

Less than two years

1.7 million

Between two and five years

2.5 million

More than five years

7.7 million

Total

11.9 million

These numbers, however, understate the potential effect of the
proposed compromise. Under the compromise, many immigrants' spouses
and children now outside of the country would likely receive green
cards. Therefore, the actual number of immigrants could be
substantially higher.

More than 60 percent of the current undocumented population-those
here illegally more than five years-would be on their way to full
amnesty under the Senate compromise. They could remain in the
United States and would be eligible for a green card. They would,
however, be required to pass a background check, work and pay
taxes, and pay a $2,000 fine, among other requirements.

Illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two
and five years would also be eligible for amnesty, and they would
only have to leave the country to pick up temporary visas. A better
policy would require exit from the country to apply for a
temporary-worker visa that puts them on equal footing with others
who want to come to the United States and work.

Not only would mid-term illegal immigrants be given priority to
stay in the United States and work, but they also would be given
priority in applying for green cards over future legal immigrants.
This provision is problematic because it rewards illegal immigrants
for breaking the law and being here illegally in the first place.
Also-and perhaps contrary to perception-this is not a temporary
program. Rather, it is a path to citizenship once the
temporary-worker visa expires.

Only short-term immigrants would not receive amnesty under the
Hagel/Martinez compromise. They would be required to return to
their home countries to apply for work visas. Because there is no
path to amnesty, this is the most desirable part of the proposal;
it would require immigrants to stop breaking the law-that is, to
leave the country-before being admitted legally.

In general, the Hagel/Martinez approach is better than the Senate
Judiciary Committee bill, which would provide amnesty for most, if
not all, illegal immigrants.

Boost Security, Reject Amnesty
An illegal immigrant should have to leave the country before he or
she can apply for a temporary work visa and certainly before he or
she can begin the process of becoming a citizen. Under the
compromise approach, illegal immigrants could leave the country to
apply at one of the 16 ports of entry, but that should not
guarantee re-entry into the United States. America must always
reserve the right to deny entry to anyone who is a criminal or a
security risk.

Providing amnesty for the long-term undocumented individuals does
not respect the rule of law and would only encourage more illegal
behavior in the future. As its deliberations on immigration
continue, the Senate should abandon any approach that amounts to
amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The Senate's
compromise on immigration reform, which could be put to a vote as
soon as the evening of April 6, is a problematic approach to the
issue of illegal immigration. Brokered by Senators Mel Martinez
(R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the compromise deal has the
following broad provisions:

Likely amnesty for immigrants in country five or more years:
These individuals are not required to leave the country and could
apply for legal status and citizenship while in the United
States.

Visas for immigrants in country between two and five years:
They must report to one of 16 "ports of entry" and pick up a
temporary work visa. However, this would not necessarily be a
temporary-worker program, as these immigrants could be eligible for
a green card after their worker visas expire.

Deportation for immigrants in country less than two years: They
would not be allowed to seek legal status in the United States and
would therefore have to leave the country and apply for a temporary
work visa from their home countries.

W hile this approach is better than amnesty for all, it still would
be a road to amnesty for most immigrants who are in the United
States illegally. This policy would encourage future illegal
immigration while rewarding those who have violated America's
laws.

Amnesty for Most
A quick review of statistics on illegal immigrants from the Pew
Hispanic Center[1] indicates how many individuals the Senate
compromise would affect:

In the
U.S.
NumberLess than two
years:
1.7 million
Between two and five years: 2.5 million
More than five
years:
7.7 millionTotal
11.9 million

These numbers, however, understate the potential effect of the
proposed compromise. Under the compromise, many immigrants' spouses
and children now outside of the country would likely receive green
cards. Therefore, the actual number of immigrants could be
substantially higher.

More than 60 percent of the current undocumented population-those
here illegally more than five years-would be on their way to full
amnesty under the Senate compromise. They could remain in the
United States and would be eligible for a green card. They would,
however, be required to pass a background check, work and pay
taxes, and pay a $2,000 fine, among other requirements.

Illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two
and five years would also be eligible for amnesty, and they would
only have to leave the country to pick up temporary visas. A better
policy would require exit from the country to apply for a
temporary-worker visa that puts them on equal footing with others
who want to come to the United States and work.

Not only would mid-term illegal immigrants be given priority to
stay in the United States and work, but they also would be given
priority in applying for green cards over future legal immigrants.
This provision is problematic because it rewards illegal immigrants
for breaking the law and being here illegally in the first place.
Also-and perhaps contrary to perception-this is not a temporary
program. Rather, it is a path to citizenship once the
temporary-worker visa expires.

Only short-term immigrants would not receive amnesty under the
Hagel/Martinez compromise. They would be required to return to
their home countries to apply for work visas. Because there is no
path to amnesty, this is the most desirable part of the proposal;
it would require immigrants to stop breaking the law-that is, to
leave the country-before being admitted legally.

In general, the Hagel/Martinez approach is better than the Senate
Judiciary Committee bill, which would provide amnesty for most, if
not all, illegal immigrants.

Boost Security, Reject Amnesty
An illegal immigrant should have to leave the country before he or
she can apply for a temporary work visa and certainly before he or
she can begin the process of becoming a citizen. Under the
compromise approach, illegal immigrants could leave the country to
apply at one of the 16 ports of entry, but that should not
guarantee re-entry into the United States. America must always
reserve the right to deny entry to anyone who is a criminal or a
security risk.

Providing amnesty for the long-term undocumented individuals does
not respect the rule of law and would only encourage more illegal
behavior in the future. As its deliberations on immigration
continue, the Senate should abandon any approach that amounts to
amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

First name is not validLast name is not validEmail Id is not validZip code is not valid

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More